Quote:
Originally posted by andViolins
I did. And you very kindly told me that you and Meyerson did not disagree with me. The two cases are simply not the same, nor was the same issue addressed in the cases.
As far as other specifics in regard to what is incorrect in the article, Meyerson states, "the board ruled that if a majority of workers signed cards or petitions asking for a vote to remove the union, the employer could decertify the union then and there without even holding that vote." This is factually incorrect. An employer does not have the right or ability under the Act to decertify a Union. Only the NLRB can decertify. The employer can withdraw recognition only if it has clear and convincing evidence that the Union no longer enjoys majority support of the bargaining unit. In addition, the employer does not "hold the vote." Again, only the NLRB can conduct a Board secret ballot election.
In the Wurtland case, if the Union presented evidence that the employees were coerced or threatened to sign the petition, then the employer would not have had the right to withdraw recognition. To my knowledge, the Union did not have that kind of evidence (or at least did not present it to the Board). Thus, we are left with the conclusion that these employees no longer wished to be represented by the union, and provided evidence of same to the employer.
aV
|
If I understand you correctly, Meyerson erred in saying the employer "could decertify" the union instead of saying that the employer "was withdrawing recognition" of the union. This strikes me as a technical error that would not mislead those unfamiliar with labor law and would be understood as such by those who do, but maybe I'm missing something.
Here's my problem. The NLRB ruled that a petition with employee signatures is deemed evidence sufficient to establish "the conclusion that these employees no longer wished to be represented by the union," in your words. You suggest that there's a rebuttable presumption that such evidence is not coerced. At the same time, you
believe that when workers submit the functional equivalent of this petition -- card check recognition under Neutrality Agreement organizing drives -- saying that they
do want to unionize, that election is presumptively coerced, such that you "have a real problem with any attempts to eliminate a secret ballot election."
Notwithstanding that you can surely square it with current application of the labor laws, this makes no sense, unless it boils down to the fact that you are OK when workers vote anti-union and would rather than they don't unionize.
